Whether developing a new aircraft, medical device, or deployment strategy, all successful engineering projects begin in the same way—with requirements for what the system shall do. However, it’s not essential for a project team to have the same set of requirements as other good projects if they fail to meet the requirements on time and within budget. For what’s crucial is the ability to move from those requirements to something that operates in the intended arena. The difference is not as much professional knowhow or tool access but, instead, simple approaches that keep complicated development projects on track from day one.
At face value, requirements are simple. “The system shall process 1,000 transactions per minute.” “The interface shall be intuitive for non-technical users.” “Safety systems will deploy within 2.5 seconds.” But those who’ve been there know that it’s getting from these segments to a working system that complicates the engagement.
The Building Block for Everything Else
Great engineers know that systems development efforts come from a better understanding of what they’re building in the first place. It’s not just the requirements written on the page but, instead, all systems integration efforts that can complicate things, who might actually be using it in the end, and what that user should do if things don’t go according to plan.
The strongest and best teams spend a significant amount of time in the early days ensuring they all have the same understanding of what it is they’re building. They assess relationships among components, determine critical interfaces, and assess how big or small they’re working so that everyone knows from the onset what is and isn’t going to be built. This isn’t busywork; this is preventing mistakes.
Modern approaches to modeling systems promote this development through systems visualizations that require everyone’s participation, from software developers to project managers. Armed with adequate sysml training, teams can develop the necessary skills to create system models that act as a single source of truth for the entire development process.
Decomposing the Complexity
The problem with most engineering solutions is that components aren’t too difficult individually; it’s how they interact with each other over time that adds unexpected levels of complexity. One requirement might seem simple on its own but gets bogged down when needing to work with dozens of others.
Experienced engineers know the power of decomposing what’s needed to develop a piece so it’s logical enough to be created separately. There are naturally occurring divisions where one subsystem passes off to another or natural boundaries emerge where discrete interfaces exist. Therefore, separate team members can work on specific pieces without stepping on each other’s toes.
However, it’s not enough just to decompose a solution; it’s imperative to decompose it correctly. Decomposing it too much loses the grouping relevance, while not decomposing it enough becomes too complicated for any one person to understand completely. Intuition guides people in their complexity; those strongest engineers develop an inherent sense of how it works.
Keeping Requirements Close to Reality
Part of the most complicated aspect of systems development is requirement drift—efforts to change somewhat over time from what they originally were supposed to be doing. And this isn’t unreasonable; as stakeholders see prototypes, they realize what they don’t need; as constraints emerge, they see what’s possible and what’s not feasible; environments change and external factors limit access or set expectations.
Yet when this drift occurs, it’s incumbent upon good systems developers to ensure that it doesn’t lead to unfocused confusion. Great engineers anticipate what can and cannot change and develop systems that embrace these transformations without complete redesign efforts. They assess which requirements are necessary for mission success and which ones are malleable.
Systems are designed with architectures that establish which requirements are likely to change throughout operation without compromising everything else. But this effort only occurs if continuous communication exists during development. Regular audits ensure problems are found sooner rather than later, and simulation and prototyping allow teams to test their thoughts before investing in hard-line decisions.
Validation That’s Worth Something
Where most projects fail is effort validation—confirming that what works as specified actually meets requirements in design. But effective validation efforts occur as part of early development rather than months-long conclusions where projects are already in the hands of other systems developers or users.
The best teams build validation into their efforts from the onset instead of waiting for completion. They establish test cases backtracked to specific requirements and know how to use simulation and modeling techniques to eliminate potential pitfalls before ever producing physical prototypes.
Most critical are end-users getting involved regularly through observation and active participation so that everyone knows early if what they’re doing will align with ultimate goals.
Effective teams catch problems when they’re still easy to resolve. All this helps build confidence among team members that they aren’t just building something on spec; instead, they’re trusted it’s going to be right.
Managing the People Process
Technical excellence does not guarantee project success. Systems Development is a people endeavor above everything else. Thus, when the best projects happen, everyone involved—engineers, project managers, end-users—understands their role in relation to the bigger picture’s integrity.
As projects become larger and larger with more complex parts, effective communication will either make or break a project deadline. Engineers must communicate with engineers, project managers, stakeholders, and those responsible for complementary systems elsewhere.
The resources that assist this communication become the dividing factor between projects that meet deadlines and those dragged through costs. The best teams establish common languages and cohesive approaches so that everyone can work together without micro-managing their ideas.
A successful project will take the time to create documentation that people will actually use—not just fill out busywork so someone else can collect it; instead, documentation will provide real value for those producing it.
Systems That Maintain Value Over Time
Often great systems concern themselves not only with what’s required now but also what can adapt later and think about those decisions which must be foundational and which ones will be changed without requiring a complete overhaul.
When systems are established with maintenance efforts in mind from the get-go instead of three years down the line, they provide more long-term value than those that merely work now but are impossible or difficult later once changes need to happen.
Best systems put together expansive documentation explaining not just how things happened but why critical decisions were made at the architecture level. This way future engineers know the motivation behind certain deeds when assessing systems with no background found in recent memory.
Great engineers know how to operate technically well from years of experience doing so. But even those who follow tried and tested methods over time consistently create systems that meet requirements on time for budgets and continue providing value long after initial projected timelines have ended. The difference between good engineers and great ones comes from projects relying on systems approaches that bring requirements where they need to go—into independent, working systems.
